Tech appendix
Inlcude all the libraries here:
if (!require("pacman")) install.packages("pacman")## Loading required package: pacmanpacman::p_load(adabag)
library(leaps)
library(data.table)
library(dplyr)##
## Attaching package: 'dplyr'## The following objects are masked from 'package:data.table':
##
## between, first, last## The following objects are masked from 'package:stats':
##
## filter, lag## The following objects are masked from 'package:base':
##
## intersect, setdiff, setequal, unionlibrary(randomForest)## randomForest 4.6-12## Type rfNews() to see new features/changes/bug fixes.##
## Attaching package: 'randomForest'## The following object is masked from 'package:dplyr':
##
## combine## The following object is masked from 'package:ggplot2':
##
## marginlibrary(ggplot2)
library(adabag)
library(corrplot)## Warning: package 'corrplot' was built under R version 3.4.2## corrplot 0.84 loadedlibrary(caret)
library(pROC)## Type 'citation("pROC")' for a citation.##
## Attaching package: 'pROC'## The following objects are masked from 'package:stats':
##
## cov, smooth, varlibrary(tree)
library(car)##
## Attaching package: 'car'## The following object is masked from 'package:dplyr':
##
## recodelibrary(rpart)
library(glmnet)## Warning: package 'glmnet' was built under R version 3.4.2## Loading required package: Matrix## Loading required package: foreach## Loaded glmnet 2.0-13##
## Attaching package: 'glmnet'## The following object is masked from 'package:pROC':
##
## auclibrary(plotly)##
## Attaching package: 'plotly'## The following object is masked from 'package:ggplot2':
##
## last_plot## The following object is masked from 'package:stats':
##
## filter## The following object is masked from 'package:graphics':
##
## layoutlibrary(corrplot)Exploratory Data Analysis:
Let us first read and understand the data:
datahealth <- read.csv("survey.csv", header=T)summary(datahealth)## Timestamp Age Gender
## 2014-08-27 12:31:41: 2 Min. :-1.726e+03 Male :615
## 2014-08-27 12:37:50: 2 1st Qu.: 2.700e+01 male :206
## 2014-08-27 12:43:28: 2 Median : 3.100e+01 Female :121
## 2014-08-27 12:44:51: 2 Mean : 7.943e+07 M :116
## 2014-08-27 12:54:11: 2 3rd Qu.: 3.600e+01 female : 62
## 2014-08-27 14:22:43: 2 Max. : 1.000e+11 F : 38
## (Other) :1247 (Other):101
## Country state self_employed family_history treatment
## United States :751 CA :138 No :1095 No :767 No :622
## United Kingdom:185 WA : 70 Yes : 146 Yes:492 Yes:637
## Canada : 72 NY : 57 NA's: 18
## Germany : 45 TN : 45
## Ireland : 27 TX : 44
## Netherlands : 27 (Other):390
## (Other) :152 NA's :515
## work_interfere no_employees remote_work tech_company
## Never :213 1-5 :162 No :883 No : 228
## Often :144 100-500 :176 Yes:376 Yes:1031
## Rarely :173 26-100 :289
## Sometimes:465 500-1000 : 60
## NA's :264 6-25 :290
## More than 1000:282
##
## benefits care_options wellness_program seek_help
## Don't know:408 No :501 Don't know:188 Don't know:363
## No :374 Not sure:314 No :842 No :646
## Yes :477 Yes :444 Yes :229 Yes :250
##
##
##
##
## anonymity leave mental_health_consequence
## Don't know:819 Don't know :563 Maybe:477
## No : 65 Somewhat difficult:126 No :490
## Yes :375 Somewhat easy :266 Yes :292
## Very difficult : 98
## Very easy :206
##
##
## phys_health_consequence coworkers supervisor
## Maybe:273 No :260 No :393
## No :925 Some of them:774 Some of them:350
## Yes : 61 Yes :225 Yes :516
##
##
##
##
## mental_health_interview phys_health_interview mental_vs_physical
## Maybe: 207 Maybe:557 Don't know:576
## No :1008 No :500 No :340
## Yes : 44 Yes :202 Yes :343
##
##
##
##
## obs_consequence
## No :1075
## Yes: 184
##
##
##
##
##
## comments
## * Small family business - YMMV. : 5
## : 1
## - : 1
## (yes but the situation was unusual and involved a change in leadership at a very high level in the organization as well as an extended leave of absence) : 1
## A close family member of mine struggles with mental health so I try not to stigmatize it. My employers/coworkers also seem compassionate toward any kind of health or family needs.: 1
## (Other) : 155
## NA's :1095data1 <- datahealth
dim(datahealth)## [1] 1259 27names(data1)## [1] "Timestamp" "Age"
## [3] "Gender" "Country"
## [5] "state" "self_employed"
## [7] "family_history" "treatment"
## [9] "work_interfere" "no_employees"
## [11] "remote_work" "tech_company"
## [13] "benefits" "care_options"
## [15] "wellness_program" "seek_help"
## [17] "anonymity" "leave"
## [19] "mental_health_consequence" "phys_health_consequence"
## [21] "coworkers" "supervisor"
## [23] "mental_health_interview" "phys_health_interview"
## [25] "mental_vs_physical" "obs_consequence"
## [27] "comments"male <- c( "Cis Male", "Cis Man", "m","cis male", "M", "maile", "Make", "Mal", "Mail", "male", "Male", "Male ", "Male (CIS)", "Malr", "Man", "msle")
female <- c( "Cis Female", "f", "F", "femail", "Femake", "female", "Female", "Female ", "Female (cis)", "Female (trans)", "Trans-female", "Trans woman", "woman","cis-female/femme", "Woman")
# Assigning the entries according to "categories"
data1$newgender <-
ifelse((data1$Gender %in% male), "Male", # Assigning "Male" to those who entered a string contained in male
ifelse((data1$Gender %in% female), "Female", "Non-M/F")) %>% # Assigning "Female" to those who entered a string contained in female
as.factor()
# Observing cleaned table
table(data1$newgender)##
## Female Male Non-M/F
## 251 990 18#Clean the age column to eliminate spurious values like negatives and ages above 120
data1 = data1[(data1$Age > 15) & (data1$Age < 120),]
dim(data1)## [1] 1251 28data1 = subset(data1, select=-c(Gender, Timestamp, comments))
data1 <- data1 %>% rename(Gender = newgender )
names(data1)## [1] "Age" "Country"
## [3] "state" "self_employed"
## [5] "family_history" "treatment"
## [7] "work_interfere" "no_employees"
## [9] "remote_work" "tech_company"
## [11] "benefits" "care_options"
## [13] "wellness_program" "seek_help"
## [15] "anonymity" "leave"
## [17] "mental_health_consequence" "phys_health_consequence"
## [19] "coworkers" "supervisor"
## [21] "mental_health_interview" "phys_health_interview"
## [23] "mental_vs_physical" "obs_consequence"
## [25] "Gender"#na.omit(data1)
dim(data1)## [1] 1251 25sapply(data1, class)## Age Country
## "numeric" "factor"
## state self_employed
## "factor" "factor"
## family_history treatment
## "factor" "factor"
## work_interfere no_employees
## "factor" "factor"
## remote_work tech_company
## "factor" "factor"
## benefits care_options
## "factor" "factor"
## wellness_program seek_help
## "factor" "factor"
## anonymity leave
## "factor" "factor"
## mental_health_consequence phys_health_consequence
## "factor" "factor"
## coworkers supervisor
## "factor" "factor"
## mental_health_interview phys_health_interview
## "factor" "factor"
## mental_vs_physical obs_consequence
## "factor" "factor"
## Gender
## "factor"names(data1)## [1] "Age" "Country"
## [3] "state" "self_employed"
## [5] "family_history" "treatment"
## [7] "work_interfere" "no_employees"
## [9] "remote_work" "tech_company"
## [11] "benefits" "care_options"
## [13] "wellness_program" "seek_help"
## [15] "anonymity" "leave"
## [17] "mental_health_consequence" "phys_health_consequence"
## [19] "coworkers" "supervisor"
## [21] "mental_health_interview" "phys_health_interview"
## [23] "mental_vs_physical" "obs_consequence"
## [25] "Gender"data1$work_interfere <- as.character(data1$work_interfere)
data1$work_interfere[is.na(data1$work_interfere)] <- "Never"
data1$work_interfere <- as.factor(data1$work_interfere)
summary(data1$work_interfere)## Never Often Rarely Sometimes
## 474 140 173 464Let us see the distribution of data with respect to tech and non-tech companies:
bar <- ggplot(data=data1, aes(x = sum(tech_company =="Yes"), fill = tech_company)) + geom_bar(width = 0.2) +coord_fixed(ratio = 0.2)
pie <- bar + coord_polar("y", start=0) +theme_void()
pie
Clearly, our data is skewed in favor of the tech companies.
Let us see the distribution of data with respect to the number of individuals seeking treatment for mental illnesses:
bar <- ggplot(data=data1, aes(x = sum(treatment =="Yes"), fill = treatment)) + geom_bar(width = 0.2) +coord_fixed(ratio = 0.2)
pie <- bar + coord_polar("y", start=0) + theme_void() + scale_fill_manual(values=c("#999999", "#E69F00"))
pie
We have close to an even distribution of data with respect to the individuals seeking treatment.
What is the percentage of folks with a family history of mental illnesses?
colors1 <- c("No" = "#fffff", "Yes" = "qqqqq", "Maybe" = "#11111", "Not sure" = "#11111", "Don't know" = "#11111")
data1 %>%
count(family_history) %>%
plot_ly(
labels = ~family_history,
values = ~n,
type = "pie",
textposition = 'inside',
textinfo = 'label+percent',
hoverinfo = 'text', # Setting text on hover (see text variable on next line)
text = ~paste(n, "Respondents"), # Setting text on hover
marker = list(colors = colors1)) %>% # Setting up colors for clarity
layout(title = "Responses")Do the ones with a family history of mental illness seek treatment?
ggplot(data=data1, aes(x=family_history, fill = treatment)) +geom_bar() +theme_light() +scale_fill_brewer(palette="Set2")
If the worker is willing to discuss the mental health issue with the supervisor, is he or she more probable to seek treatment?
ggplot(data=data1, aes(x=supervisor, fill = treatment)) +geom_bar() +theme_light() +scale_fill_brewer(palette="Set3")
How does the employer providing resources for mental health affect an individual actaully seeking treatment?
ggplot(data=data1, aes(x=seek_help, fill = treatment)) +geom_bar() +theme_light() +scale_fill_brewer(palette="Set1")
Does the anonymity of the worker affect the individual seeking treatment?
ggplot(data=data1, aes(x=anonymity, fill = treatment)) +geom_bar() +theme_light() +scale_fill_brewer(palette="Set2")
Do the consequences of seeking mental help affect the worker seeking treatment?
ggplot(data=data1, aes(x=obs_consequence, fill = treatment)) +geom_bar() +theme_light() +scale_fill_brewer(palette="Set1")
How seriously are issues related to mental health taken in comparison to physical health, in tech and non-tech companies:
ggplot(data=data1, aes(x=mental_vs_physical, fill = tech_company)) +geom_bar() +theme_light() +scale_fill_brewer(palette="Set2")
Does the compnay size affect the employees being afftected with mental health issues?
ggplot(data=data1, aes(x=work_interfere, fill = no_employees)) +geom_bar() +theme_light() +scale_fill_brewer(palette="Set2")
Does the size of the company affect the awareness created about mental health in the organization?
ggplot(data=data1, aes(x=seek_help, fill = no_employees)) +geom_bar() +theme_light() +scale_fill_brewer(palette="Set2")
Model building:
Out of the 1251 samples, we are reserving 875(70%) samples for training and 376(30%) samples for testing.
set.seed(1)
n <- nrow(data1)
train.index <- sample(n,875)
health.train <- data1[train.index,]
health.test <- data1[-train.index,]
x.train <- health.train[,-6]
y.train <- health.train$treatment
x.test <- health.test[,-6]
y.test <- health.test$treatment#Creating a dataframe to save results of each method in order to plot a graph
success <- data.frame(methods=c("Logistic Regression","Single Tree", "Random Forest","Bagging","Neural Nets"), percentages=c(0,0,0,0,0))Logistic regression:
fit0 <- glm(treatment~ ., data = health.train, family=binomial(logit))
Anova(fit0) #Perform Anova to get significant variables ## Analysis of Deviance Table (Type II tests)
##
## Response: treatment
## LR Chisq Df Pr(>Chisq)
## Age 0.439 1 0.507708
## Country 0.604 3 0.895474
## state 50.353 42 0.176483
## self_employed 1.403 1 0.236289
## family_history 9.128 1 0.002517 **
## work_interfere 193.386 3 < 2.2e-16 ***
## no_employees 5.397 5 0.369401
## remote_work 0.054 1 0.816271
## tech_company 2.221 1 0.136152
## benefits 8.672 2 0.013091 *
## care_options 7.555 2 0.022875 *
## wellness_program 0.464 2 0.792763
## seek_help 10.207 2 0.006075 **
## anonymity 10.158 2 0.006227 **
## leave 1.977 4 0.740053
## mental_health_consequence 4.768 2 0.092172 .
## phys_health_consequence 1.882 2 0.390219
## coworkers 3.620 2 0.163635
## supervisor 1.597 2 0.449947
## mental_health_interview 1.825 2 0.401619
## phys_health_interview 1.714 2 0.424527
## mental_vs_physical 2.262 2 0.322723
## obs_consequence 0.021 1 0.884024
## Gender 3.813 2 0.148583
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1Since state and self_employed have NA values but are not significant at the 0.05 level, we can remove these columns from our data.
data1 <- data1[, -c(3,4)]
health.train <- health.train[, -c(3,4)]
health.test <- health.test[, -c(3,4)]
x.train <- x.train[, -c(3,4)]
x.test <- x.test[, -c(3,4)]Picking out only the significant variables, we get a better model with the variables - family_history, work_interfere, benefits, care_options, seek_help, anonymity.
fit1 <- glm(treatment ~ family_history + work_interfere + benefits + care_options + seek_help + anonymity, data = health.train, family=binomial(logit))
Anova(fit1) #Anonymity is not significant. Remove it.## Analysis of Deviance Table (Type II tests)
##
## Response: treatment
## LR Chisq Df Pr(>Chisq)
## family_history 25.87 1 3.643e-07 ***
## work_interfere 337.09 3 < 2.2e-16 ***
## benefits 13.73 2 0.001043 **
## care_options 7.48 2 0.023774 *
## seek_help 6.26 2 0.043718 *
## anonymity 3.32 2 0.190137
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1fit2 <- glm(treatment ~ family_history + work_interfere + benefits + care_options + seek_help , data = health.train, family=binomial(logit))
Anova(fit2) #seek_help is not significant. Remove it. ## Analysis of Deviance Table (Type II tests)
##
## Response: treatment
## LR Chisq Df Pr(>Chisq)
## family_history 26.83 1 2.217e-07 ***
## work_interfere 335.97 3 < 2.2e-16 ***
## benefits 15.87 2 0.0003582 ***
## care_options 10.44 2 0.0053989 **
## seek_help 5.05 2 0.0801450 .
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1fit3 <- glm(treatment ~ family_history + work_interfere + benefits + care_options , data = health.train, family=binomial(logit))
Anova(fit3) #All variables significant at 0.05 level## Analysis of Deviance Table (Type II tests)
##
## Response: treatment
## LR Chisq Df Pr(>Chisq)
## family_history 27.58 1 1.508e-07 ***
## work_interfere 331.81 3 < 2.2e-16 ***
## benefits 18.03 2 0.0001213 ***
## care_options 8.78 2 0.0124290 *
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1fit1.roc <- roc(health.train$treatment, fit1$fitted, plot=F)
fit2.roc <- roc(health.train$treatment, fit2$fitted, plot=F)
fit3.roc <- roc(health.train$treatment, fit3$fitted, plot=F)
#Not much difference between the 3 fits.
plot(1-fit1.roc$specificities, fit1.roc$sensitivities, col="red", pch=16, cex=.7,
xlab="False Positive",
ylab="Sensitivity")
points(1-fit2.roc$specificities, fit2.roc$sensitivities, col="blue", pch=16, cex=.6)
points(1-fit3.roc$specificities, fit3.roc$sensitivities, col="green", pch=16, cex=.6)
title("Red is for fit1, blue is for fit2, and green is for fit3")
# roccurve <- roc(health.test$treatment ~ predict(fit3, health.test))
# plot(roccurve)
fit.pred <- rep("No", 1000)
fit.pred[fit3$fitted > 2/3]="Yes"
MCE = (sum((fit.pred[health.train$treatment == "Yes"] != "Yes"))
+ sum((fit.pred[health.train$treatment == "No"] != "No")))/length(health.train$treatment)
MCE #0.191## [1] 0.2308571success$percentages[success$methods == "Logistic Regression"] <- (100 - MCE*100)Single tree:
set.seed(1)
fit.single <- randomForest(treatment~., health.train, mtry=2, ntree=1)names(fit.single)## [1] "call" "type" "predicted"
## [4] "err.rate" "confusion" "votes"
## [7] "oob.times" "classes" "importance"
## [10] "importanceSD" "localImportance" "proximity"
## [13] "ntree" "mtry" "forest"
## [16] "y" "test" "inbag"
## [19] "terms"fit.single$mtry## [1] 2fit.single$votes[1:20, ] # prob of 0 and 1 using oob's## No Yes
## 334 1 0
## 469 NaN NaN
## 720 1 0
## 1142 1 0
## 253 NaN NaN
## 1127 0 1
## 1185 1 0
## 828 NaN NaN
## 787 1 0
## 77 NaN NaN
## 257 NaN NaN
## 220 NaN NaN
## 857 1 0
## 479 1 0
## 958 NaN NaN
## 619 0 1
## 892 0 1
## 1233 1 0
## 472 NaN NaN
## 963 NaN NaNfit.single$predicted[1:20] # lables using oob's and majority vote. Notice those with NA because they are not in any OOB's## 334 469 720 1142 253 1127 1185 828 787 77 257 220 857 479 958
## No <NA> No No <NA> Yes No <NA> No <NA> <NA> <NA> No No <NA>
## 619 892 1233 472 963
## Yes Yes No <NA> <NA>
## Levels: No Yesfit.single$err.rate[1,]["OOB"] # mis-classification errors of oob's/0/1## OOB
## 0.3824451predict(fit.single, health.test)[1:20] # prediction by using the RF based on all the training data.## 1 4 5 6 11 12 13 20 23 26 28 33 36 38 39 41 46 50
## Yes No No Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No No No No
## 51 53
## No No
## Levels: No Yesdata.frame(fit.single$votes[1:20, ], fit.single$predicted[1:20], predict(fit.single, health.test)[1:20] )## No Yes fit.single.predicted.1.20.
## 334 1 0 No
## 469 NaN NaN <NA>
## 720 1 0 No
## 1142 1 0 No
## 253 NaN NaN <NA>
## 1127 0 1 Yes
## 1185 1 0 No
## 828 NaN NaN <NA>
## 787 1 0 No
## 77 NaN NaN <NA>
## 257 NaN NaN <NA>
## 220 NaN NaN <NA>
## 857 1 0 No
## 479 1 0 No
## 958 NaN NaN <NA>
## 619 0 1 Yes
## 892 0 1 Yes
## 1233 1 0 No
## 472 NaN NaN <NA>
## 963 NaN NaN <NA>
## predict.fit.single..health.test..1.20.
## 334 Yes
## 469 No
## 720 No
## 1142 Yes
## 253 No
## 1127 No
## 1185 Yes
## 828 Yes
## 787 No
## 77 No
## 257 Yes
## 220 No
## 857 No
## 479 No
## 958 No
## 619 No
## 892 No
## 1233 No
## 472 No
## 963 Nosuccess$percentages[success$methods == "Single Tree"] <- (100 - 100*fit.single$err.rate[1,]["OOB"])Random forests:
health.rf <- train(treatment~., data=health.train, method="rf",metric="Accuracy", ntree=20)
plot(health.rf) 
predict.rf <- predict(health.rf,health.test)
#Accuracy
confusionMatrix(predict.rf, health.test$treatment)$overall[1]## Accuracy
## 0.8164894success$percentages[success$methods == "Random Forest"] <- confusionMatrix(predict.rf, health.test$treatment)$overall[1]*100Neural nets:
# Let us first calculate the number of hidden layers/nodes and the decay parameters
# size: number of intermediate hidden nodes
# decay: parameter to avoid overfitting
parameter <- train( treatment ~ . , data=health.train, method="nnet", trace=F)
size <- parameter$bestTune$size
decay <- parameter$bestTune$decay
# Neural net model:
model.nn <- nnet(treatment ~ ., size=size, decay=decay, trace=F, data=health.train)
predict.nn <- predict(model.nn, health.test, type = "class")
sum(predict.nn==y.test)/length(predict.nn) #Accuracy## [1] 0.8244681success$percentages[success$methods == "Neural Nets"] <- confusionMatrix(predict.nn,health.test$treatment)$overall[1]*100Bagging:
bag.model <- bagging(treatment ~ ., data=health.train)
predict.bag <- predict(bag.model, health.test, type="class")
confusionMatrix(predict.bag$class, health.test$treatment)$overall[1]## Accuracy
## 0.8590426success$percentages[success$methods == "Bagging"] <- confusionMatrix(predict.bag$class, health.test$treatment)$overall[1]*100Lets plot our success rates for different methods:
success## methods percentages
## 1 Logistic Regression 76.91429
## 2 Single Tree 61.75549
## 3 Random Forest 81.64894
## 4 Bagging 85.90426
## 5 Neural Nets 82.44681ggplot(success, aes(x=methods, y=percentages)) + geom_bar(stat="identity", fill=c("yellowgreen", "hotpink2", "dodgerblue3", "orange2","Red"), width = 0.2) + coord_flip() + theme(legend.position = "none") + geom_text(aes(label = format(round(percentages, 2), nsmall = 2)), size = 3, hjust = 3, vjust = 3)